PT92.S1.Q20 - Mr. Klemke argues that the complaints....

frogandtoad

Can anyone help me work through number 20?

I think the sheer amount of language in here is what's throwing me off. But summarized as generally as possible, I think the stimulus is saying.
"Klemke thinks that the complaints are unfounded bc the complainers are biased. However, being biased would NOT prevent you from being badly treated. Therefore, the complaints are justified (not unfounded)"

So is the argument flawed because it asserts that Klemke's argument is inadequate even though it is adequate?

I'm just lost :??

Admin Notes:
1. Deleted the stimulus because it is against our Forum Rules to post LSAT questions on the forum.
2. Amended the title: Please use the format "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of question"

LawyeringForLife-1

Who cares if K's argument is adequate? Au believes it's not. Au assumes that K did something bad anyway, so he deserves the criticism and completely dodges the question of bias. It's easier to say K's arg is bad, rather than find proper evidence.

This question is a bit convoluted, so it's a good candidate for process of elimination approach.
Here is how I intuitively understood the ACs on first run:
A: circular reasoning? no where to be found. eliminate.
B: Huh? Maybe.
C: So K's arg is bad because he is biased? That's a sneaky trap. Just because he has political views that someone disagrees with, you can't jump to bias. Eliminate.
Unrepresentative sample of political opinions - utter nonsense. Eliminate.
E: People being unaware of disagreements - irrelevant. Eliminate.

Even if you need to do a second or third read of the stimulus to grasp the nuances and understand why B is correct, a cursory read is enough to eliminate the others. Maybe C can give you pause, but you can resolve that relatively quickly.

joli9987

Mr. K is saying that those who have complained about his roofing company are biased. The author's argument is claiming those who disagree with K could still be treated badly, so really it's Mr. K who is just mean. As a result, the author concludes that Mr. K's claim is completely false.

The conclusion is extreme compared to the support. Essentially, it's saying that Mr. K's argument is false because regardless of the political outlook of the complainants, Mr. K will still be a bully. But what if it's the complete opposite? Maybe Mr. K is actually nice. The argument is attempting to weaken Mr. K's claim but then treating it as if Mr. K's argument is completely wrecked.